/->..
HD2o
MAR 181987
ALFRED
P.
WORKING PAPER
SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT
GROUP DEVELOPMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS:
FROM THE OUTSIDE IN
Deborah Gladstein Ancona
Sloan School of Management
MIT
02139
Cambridge, Mass.
617-253-0568
WP 1846-86
December 1986
MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS 02139
^ GROUP DEVELOPMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS:
FROM THE OUTSIDE IN
Deborah Gladstein Ancona
Sloan School of Management
MIT
02139
Cambridge, Mass.
617-253-0568
WP 1846-86
December 1986
I
m
1
9 1987
ABSTRACT
This study examines the early developmental patterns of five matrix,
In contrast to earlier research this study tracks both
consulting teams.
behaviors inside the teams and boundary behaviors aimed at modeling and
meeting the demands of the external task environment.
The five teams
developed differently despite doing the same task, in the same
organization, at the same time.
Furthermore, teams who followed a pattern
of external behaviors proceeding internal team building were higher
performers a year later.
1
Organizations often respond to environmental uncertainty by establishing
structures that enable them to meet new demands and to channel activities in a
new direction.
Examples of such groups are matrix teams, coordinating
committees, and new product teams.
Vftiether
permanent or temporary, they are
composed of members with loyalties and commitments to other parts of the
organization, not solely to the team; yet members must work as part of a group
to create a product or produce a service vital to the organization.
This paper
reports on the early developmental patterns of five matrix teams and how these
patterns relate to performance
a
year later.
Hundreds of studies of group development have been done (see Hare, 1973;
Heinen & Jacobsen, 1976; Tuckman, 1965), but it is not clear that these group
dynamics studies adequately address developmental issues in organizational task
groups, which are the focus of this research.
Most of these studies concur
with Bennis & Shepard (1956) in postulating that group development requires the
resolution of two major issues: authority and intimacy (how will leadership
emerge and how close will we become?)
among group members.
Thus, the focus is on the interaction
Organizational groups, however, are not closed systems
but open systems that must interact with an external environment.
Current
developmental research has not systematically examined the evolution of
transactions between the group and its organization and task environment.
Indeed, many of the studies were set up to control for task and context.
This research examines the first four months of five matrix teams and
attempts to revise development models by putting context back into the
equation.
It asks the
question of how adaptation to the external environment
complements the establishment of internal cohesion and coordination.
It
focuses the lens outward from the group's boundary and examines how groups
develop in the organization, not how individuals develop in the group, e.g. how
does the group meet its goals not how do individuals meet theirs.
GROUP DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
This section begins with a review and critique of the group dynamics
literature. This is followed by an examination of some group-level studies that
provide insights on the role of boundary transactions and environmental
adaptation in development.
Finally, the section ends with a brief look at
individual and organization level development models and what can be borrowed
from them.
Group Dynamics Literature
Group dynamics models of development typically describe the sequential
stages through which therapy groups, self -growth groups, laboratory groups, or
natural groups mature (see Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Dunphy, 1964; Mann, 1967;
Mills,
1964; Tuckman & Jensen,
1977).
Generally, during the initial stage, the
individual group member is concerned with his or her personal role within the
group, as well as in becoming familiar with other group members.
Following
this orientation period some degree of conflict develops as group members
confront the issues of which members exert power and will subsequently have
control over the actions of the group.
As these issues of power and control
are resolved, members become able to agree on group norms and rules that define
the operational structure through which the group can achieve its goals and/or
complete its task.
Heinen and Jacobsen (1976) in
a
review of the group
development models concluded that the initial and final stages, orientation and
work, are similar among the models, but that the number and nature of the
middle stages vary.
3
Researchers have focused also on problem-solving phases (e.g. Bales and
Strodtbeck (1951) observed phases of orientation, evaluation and control) and
Recursive models describe groups not as following a
recursive models.
distinct set of stages but rather as showing the repeated use of particular
themes over time.
In a review of recursive models,
Shambaugh (1978) postulated
that groups fluctuate between patterns showing closeness and separateness.
During periods of closeness, the group culture is established, while during
periods of separateness group members carry on work-related tasks.
Bion (1961)
observed groups to go back and forth between work and three emotional states:
dependency, fight-flight, and pairing.
Group dynamics studies typically call for observing
a
laboratory or
training group, then coding Interpersonal behavior according to
a
scheme, e.g., shows agreement or active, dominant, talks a lot,
(see Bales,
1958,
1976).
prespecified
A stage is considered ended when the dominant type of behavior
changes.
Yet it is questionable whether these findings can be generalized to
on-going work teams. Evidence suggests that the nature and duration of stages
is
dependent upon the type of task (Hare,
1973).
T-group tasks have an
explicit focus on interpersonal Issues, hence work is coded very differently
than it would be in organizational task groups.
Secondly, the group trainer
abdicates the traditional leader role (Farrell, 1968)
thereby creating, by
design, issues of leadership and authority, which may not be present in teams
with formal leaders.
Thirdly, these groups are often isolated, their task does
not require external interaction, hence external transactions and interaction
with the environment are not monitored.
Finally, HIrschhorm & Krantz (1978)
have argued that the finite nature of the task is what accounts for the
laboratory findings.
4
These limits to the generallzablllty of the group dynamics findings raise
some new research questions.
VThat
role do authority and intimacy play in
development when organization task work and cross -boundary behaviors are also
considered?
Are there issues of authority and Intimacy between the group and
its external "leaders" or task allocators as there are between the leader and
group members?
How does a formal leader Influence developmental patterns?
How
do groups develop when the time frame shifts from several hours to several
months or years?
Studies of R&D Project Teams
Studies of R&D project teams, although not explicitly examining group
development, have contributed to our knowledge of boundary processes in
groups.
These studies have pointed out the importance of boundary roles and
the transfer of information between the group and its organizational and task
environment, in predicting group success (see Allen, 198A; Tushman,
1977,1979).
For example, high performing R&D project groups show far greater
communication with colleagues outside the group than low-performing teams do
(Allen,
198A).
In addition, Katz and Tushman (1979)
illustrate the Importance
of boundary spanning individuals to handle interactions between the group and
other parts of the laboratory and between the group and external
constituencies, such as customers and suppliers.
Gladstein and Caldwell (1985)
hypothesize that the degree and type of boundary spanning activity needs to
change over time in new product teams. When information and cooperation from
other parts of the organization are needed, there must be considerable
interaction across the boundary, but once a direction has been negotiated, the
team needs to devote its efforts to the internal tasks at hand.
5
Groups that are Interdependent with other parts of the organization and a
task environment, must create and maintain external relationships.
This view
of the group as acting on, rather than reacting to, the external environment is
a key
contribution of this literature.
relations develop?
Who carries them out?
influence internal ones?
time?
How?
But questions remain.
When do external
How do external interactions
Does the degree and type of activity change over
In monitoring group development the degree,
type, and timing of
external activity must be monitored.
Sociological Studies
Sociological studies have helped to articulate behaviors that
to meet external demands.
for social systems.
a
group needs
Parson's (1960) described four functions necessary
The first two:
integration and pattern maintenance
represent the primary focus of the group dynamics perspective.
Integration
refers to coordination of efforts; hierarchy, workflow, and procedures, or in
group terms norms and rules for coordination.
Pattern maintenance refers to
reducing tension in the system through the development of values and
satisfaction of members.
Minimized in our current models are the external
functions: adaptation and goal attainment.
Adaptation is the procurement and
disposal of resources, and gaining environmental support.
Goal attainment is
the defining of goals and evaluation of progress toward those goals.
The goals
are not ones of efficiency and satisfaction within the group, but effectiveness
and demonstration to the outside world that something has been accomplished
(Lyden,
1975).
From a developmental perspective the question becomes how does
the group accomplish both Internal and external functions?
Are they done
concurrently or does one proceed the other? With what effect?
6
Homans (1950) also considers the environment a key element in group
development.
The environment influences how groups initially set themselves up
and provides feedback that the group accepts "only to the degree that fulfills
Its own conception of what is proper in its own terms." (Homans,
1950, p.
14).
Although the sociological literature does not address how this conception
is initially formed in the group,
a
(1985) may add to our understanding.
groups from their inception.
recent study by Bettenhausen and Murnighan
They monitored nineteen decision-making
At the outset, the Initial uncertainty posed by a
new task leads members to search for behavioral scripts or anchors from their
experiences in similar social settings.
Depending upon the similarity of these
schema, the group either tacitly agrees upon or negotiates a common basis for
action.
Groups continue along, members either reinforcing beliefs about
appropriate action or overtly trying to move the group to their
Interpretation.
based
or.
Difficulties arise if group members exhibit similar behavior
different schema, when latent conflict may develop.
This research asks what schema do group members bring to the group
regarding internal versus external functions; how do we set ourselves up and
how do we view the environment?
Does group activity follow from early schema?
Then how does the group react as that action produces feedback from the
environment?
Models at other Levels of Analysis
Researchers studying development at other levels of analysis also have
addressed the issues of schema development and the role of the environment in
development.
Although different levels of analysis may have different,
non-transferable mechanisms that produce change, e.g. physiological change at
the individual level, or increasing size at the organizational level, we may be
able to benefit from their results.
Individual and organization-level
development theorists articulate stages of development similar to those in
7
group models, but for this research
I
will concentrate on models that examine
the role of the environment in moving an entity from one stage to another.
One such model describes individual changes through stable-
transformational shifts (Piaget, 1970; Levinson, 1978).
Central to Piaget's
concept is the belief that the child's development depends upon what the child
contributes to an environment and what is learned in interaction with it
(Hilgard & Bower, 1975).
is
According to Piaget, knowledge from the environment
fit into or becomes a part of the child's existing schema or structures.
It
merely a passive perception, but adds to the background of previous
is not
experiences.
This process is called assimilation.
The complementary process
of accommodation requires the child to change his or her schema somewhat to
account for new external realities.
Equilibration is the adjustment process of
fitting external reality into existing structures (assimilation) and modifying
that structure (accommodation).
The child moves in stages through activity and
experimftntation with the environment.
Following this model, thinking and learning is accomplished through
acting.
Actions are translated into mental operations that increase the
accuracy of the schema of the external world.
Multiple experiences open up
a
more varied world, which can be approached with Increased flexibility (Siegel,
1969).
Task groups also need to produce an accurate schema of the external
world in which they operate.
Task assignors and evaluators of group output
often are outside the group's boundaries.
An understanding of the external
task environment may be crucial for determining how the group should set itself
up internally to meet external demands.
Katz (1982) supports this argument at the group level of analysis.
examination of fifty project teams, he found
performance and mean project tenure.
a
In an
curvilinear relationship between
The decline in performance over time was
8
due partially to the "tendency of group members to ignore and become
increasingly isolated from sources that provide the most critical kinds of
evaluation, information, and feedback" (p. 99).
In other words,
lower-performing groups cease to update their models of the external
environment and performance declines.
In a study of eight temporary task forces Gersick (1983)
found that groups
responded to feedback and information from the environment only at certain
periods of their life cycle.
The group can be influenced at the first meeting
when basic approaches to work are set up and at the transition point when
groups are looking for feedback and input from the context to reformulate their
understanding of external demands and how to meet those demands.
In contrast,
the two major phases of work activity (from the first meeting to the midpoint,
and the midpoint to completion) are closed periods where the group is not
likely to alter its basic direction.
Tushjnan and Romanelli
is
(1985) study organizational development.
Development
described as a series of evolutionary or convergent periods followed by
revolutionary or reorientation periods.
Two basic forces for revolution in the
organization are sustained low performance and major changes in "competitive,
technological, social, and legal conditions of the environment that render a
prior strategic reorientation, regardless of its success, no longer
effective."
Countering these forces for revolution are internal and
institutional pressures for incremental change and inertia.
As in the
individual development process, there is a pattern of incremental change but
with an emphasis on working effectively within that schema or structure.
continues until environmental stimuli indicate either that the system is
failing or that environmental change requires a different mapping of the
environment and
a
different mode of dealing with it.
The environment both
This
9
shapes internal schema and provides feedback that, if attended to, encourages
accomodation or revolution.
While assuming that phenomena at one level of
analysis apply at another is dangerous, it is possible that the environment
plays a similar role at the group level of analysis.
Implications for this Study
The literatures suggest a framework for
thinking about the development process (see Figure 1).
represented by
a set of
The group is
people with schema about how a group should behave,
both with respect to its members and its environment.
These schema somehow
lead to action by the group, both internally and externally.
produces feedback both from members and from the environment.
This action
Members either
react to that feedback and change their behavior leading to a new stage of
activity or they assimilate the feedback and continue on as before.
This study traces the development of five organizational groups, doing the
same task at the same point in time.
It tracks both internal and external
behavior for the first four months of the groups' existence to determine if and
how group's follow the predicted framework.
It
measures performance a year
later to determine the consequences of development patterns.
METHODOLOGY
The research observes the five groups in their natural setting, using a
multi-method approach to data collection.
Observations, interviews, logs,
internal memos and agendas, and questionnaires were all used at various times
in an effort to piece together perceptions and behaviors of group members,
task assignor, and the consumers of the group's services.
the
It is not easy to
monitor organizational groups with part-time members, erratic meetings, where
work is done in sub-groups or by individuals between meetings and both within
10
and outside of the organization.
is
an inductive one, as here.
This is particularly true when the approach
Within the broad categories of interpersonal
relations, task work, and adaptation, the goal was to describe the
developmental process and search for patterns.
The strategy was to collect
data from a broad base of sources to provide information about team functioning
both within and between meetings, about what the teams actually did and what
members perceived they were doing.
The consequences of this breadth are holes
There was a limit on how much team members could be asked, and
in the data.
would contribute, given demands on their time.
The Sample
The five teams were formed in December 1982 as part of a structural
reorganization at
a
State Department of Education.
Original organization was
along functional lines, with consultants (e.g., reading specialist) reporting
to one of six division heads in areas such as elementary, vocational, and
special education.
New regional teams were formed to deal with difficulties of
coordination between divisions, to provide more uniform service across
geographical areas, and to improve the reputation of the Department in the
field.
The teams were to act as generalists to diagnose, monitor, and serve
the needs of their regions, and to improve interunlt communication.
The teams
ranged in size from six to ten.
The new Department structure is a matrix design with consultants
"reporting" to a functional unit head and to a team leader.
somewhat of
a
Reporting is
misnomer, for team members are at the same hierarchical level as
leaders, leaders simply have more responsibility and receive a small stipend.
The Vice Commissioner supervises the activities of the newly formed teams,
while functional unit heads report to Division Heads who report to the
Commissioner (see Figure
2
for an organization chart).
11
The teams consist of consultants from a variety of units, most of whom knew
each other by sight but who had not worked together before the reorganization.
In late December the entire organization met off-site.
The Commissioner gave a
supportive speech, and the employees who had helped to design the new
organization put together skits to illustrate how the new organization would
work.
Since the charge to the teams was quite general, I.e. to diagnose and
serve the needs of the regions, these employees also suggested specific, early
team activities such as creating a profile of the region.
And so the teams
Team members had to decide how to allocate their time between
were created.
team and functional activities, with the round number of one day a week often
mentioned as
a
base point.
There are several features that characterize these
te£Uiis.
Members must
work interdependent ly to produce a service of importance to the organization.
There is formal leadership within the team, and there are defined group
boundaries
.
Members work for the team part-time
.
Teams are monitored and
evaluated both by the Commissioner and Vice Commissioner and they are intended
to serve the needs of an external constituency.
The teams are a new part of
the organization--they must learn to function with the other parts.
there are demands to accomplish a task
,
Hence
to manage interpersonal relations
,
and
to positively influence individuals outside of the group.
Data Collection Instruments
Data were collected from a variety of sources in order to gather
information about perceptions and behaviors in the realm of interpersonal
relations, task behavior, and team-context interaction.
In early January 1983,
after the off-site meeting, team leaders were interviewed on their initial
thoughts about the teams and how they would operate.
In late February,
questionnaire was distributed to all team members to get
a
a
sense of early
12
perceptions of team activity and progress.
Interviews were held In March and
early May to determine if our profiles of the teams were accurate.
the January to May time period,
in response to our requests,
Throughout
team leaders sent
us agendas, minutes, notes, and other written material originating in their
teams.
We (the researcher and an assistant) sat in on team meetings throughout
this period and periodically (six times) dropped by the Department to ask key
informants for news of group and organizational events. For a summary of data
collected for each team see Table
In addition,
1.
the researchers sat in on team leader meetings (seven)
throughout this period, and met with the Commissioner and Vice Commissioner
(two), who also supplied organization-level written materials about team
functioning.
Then, in January 1984, we met with the Commissioner and the head
of personnel for evaluations of the teams a year later.
At this time we had
planned to survey superintendents in the five regions, but this was not
permitted because the organization had just embarked on its own evaluation.
The results of the Department survey of superintendents are included here.
Interviews
.
Formal, scheduled, open-ended Interviews were held with team
leaders and team members before and during the four months of investigation.
The questions were fixed (see Appendix
1
for interview questions), and
Interviews lasted between one and two hours.
Questionnaire
.
A questionnaire was distributed to team leaders with copies
for all team members.
A return envelope was Included along with a letter
describing the purpose of the survey.
Questions were taken from several
sources (Hackman, 1980, Van de Ven and Ferry,
the author.
1978); they are available from
13
Team Meeting Observation
observed.
Team meetings and team leader meetings were both
.
Notes were taken with no category scheme In mind.
Instead the
researchers followed an open-ended technique (see Hanlon, 1980) making notes In
three columns; observations, interpretations and patterns.
For instance, the
observer puts in the first column as much as she can of what can be categorized
as observed fact,
e,
e.g., John spoke xininterrupted for ten minutes about district
Sam said, "l think we should rotate leadership," In a loud voice, looking
directly at the team leader.
This is followed by, but clearly separated from,
interpretation of that observation, e.g., district
e
is
becoming a focal point
for regional activity, or there is some dissatisfaction with current
Finally, the observer notes patterns based on repeated
leadership.
observations, e.g., the team approaches the region by concentrating on one
district at
a
time in great depth, or here is another example of
dissatisfaction.
Behaviors that are recorded remain open to later
interpret at ion.
RESULTS
Perhaps the most Interesting finding of this research is that five teams
developed very differently, despite doing the same task, in the same
organization, at the same time.
At the outset, all teams wanted to perform
well, and all believed they had the people and resources to do that.
structured themselves differently to accomplish their task, however:
They
leadership
ranged from democratic to somewhat autocratic; meeting purposes differed; and
the extent of interpersonal considerations varied as did the teams' approaches
to the rest of the organization and the school districts.
appear to be related to performance a year later.
These differences
14
Plans and Expectations
A team is not a tabula rasa to be molded and enacted from the day of its
Inception.
Instead each team has members and a leader who have plans and
expectations for the team.
These plans and expectations stem from schema or
scripts (see Abelson, 1976; Taylor & Crocker, 1981) that help leaders to
organize and make sense of new stimuli.
That is, members enter with cognitive
representations of objects, persons, events, and their Interrelationships,
formed from previous experiences, that help them to frame new situations.
we examine the leaders'
interviews.
Table
2
Here
internal models, as communicated in initial
summarizes team leader views on resources, reservations
about the teams, goals, structure, external interaction, and leadership.
Leaders have been given the names Victor, Halter, Xena, Yurgen, and Zoro,
representing teams V,W,X,Y, and
Z.
Similarities; Loose Structure. Liaison Role, Limitless Enthusiasm
were certain similarities among team leaders at the beginning:
.
There
plans to have a
loose structure, to have the leader play the liaison role to the other leaders
and top management, and great enthusiasm for the team concept.
The leaders all
believed that initially the internal structure had to be loose due to the lack
of clarity in the task.
Most leaders voiced the opinion, however, that they
would be the liaison to top management and other teams while team members would
provide the link to functional units.
The greatest similarity among team leaders was their stated enthusiasm for
the new team concept and for the resources in the form of people, and
organization support (see resources row of Table 2).
Perhaps more interesting
were the caveats attached to this initial burst of enthusiasm (see reservations
row of Table 2) because they foreshadow future patterns of behavior and
reinforce the fact that while
differences kept appearing.
I
was looking for similarities systematic
15
Victor appeared a bit tentative about the new design and appeared to want
Walter painted
to protect himself from the responsibility of failure.
everything in an optimistic light, particularly the opportunities for
visibility and recognition providing further support for the power theme.
Xena
Her only hesitation was
was also optimistic that the team would be a success.
her belief that it would take time for people to change from the old system.
She exhibits concern for team member adjustment. Yurgen also voiced just a hint
of hesitation, but he saw himself as able to meet the challenge
.
Zoro thought
that both he and his people were looking forward to giving the new design a
try.
Zoro appeared to be more certain about success, he knew what the team had
to do and the next step was to define how to get there
Differences:
Internal versus External Focus
.
.
One of the striking
differences among the team leaders early on was their view of when and how to
interact with their regions.
Coinciding with the different approaches to
team-context interaction were different proposed leadership styles and degrees
of emphasis on internal activities (See Table 2; interaction, goals, and
leadership rows).
Leaders' plans for external interaction can be characterized by three
approaches that differ on several dimensions:
level of interaction
interaction with the field would occur; modeling technique
,
,
or how much
or how the group
would go about modeling the external environment--either use information that
members already had or go out into the field and seek new Information; and
finally type of interaction, or the degree to which group members passively
collected information versus actively probing and testing ideas and plans with
the external environment.
Coinciding with the different approaches to the
environment were different leadership styles ranging from facilitator to
boundary spanner (see Table 3).
16
Type
I:
Internal Isolates
This pattern Is characterized by an intention
.
to have little interaction with the environment, modeling the environment using
internal data, and a wait-and-see style of interaction with the environment.
Coinciding with this internal focus is emphasis on
building and task definition and
is
a
a
primary goal of team
facilitating leadership style.
demonstrated by Victor, who speaks about
This pattern
primary goal of "opening
a
communications", sharing experiences about the region with other group members,
having a good deal of exchange with the region.
and "somewhere along the line"
Type II: Internal-Passives
.
Walter and Xena Illustrate a slightly
different model of external/internal emphasis.
Although they too believed that
the environment could be modeled with Internal information, they also wanted to
have considerable interaction with the environment so that they become a
familiar sight.
is
Their interaction is passive in that they simply observe what
going on ("...I want to circulate, to be familiar, go to superintendent's
meeting?, and be introduced to improve our reputation"); they want to be known
in the field but do not intend to initiate action until they have solidified as
teams and determined priorities. Leadership is still viewed as a facilitator
function.
This type also shows an internal focus in that team building is
Important and that modeling of the region can be done in isolation (The plan
will be developed "sharing the information and perspectives that we have...").
Type 111: External-Actives.
The third pattern of external/internal
activity is illustrated by Yurgen and Zeno.
These two leaders believed that
there must be a high level of interaction with the environment, that external
information must be brought in to update models of the external environment,
and that active interaction with, not passive observation of, the environment
is needed.
Leadership is viewed as both
spanning function.
a
facilitator function and a boundary
17
In contrast to other leaders, Yurgen and Zoro do not believe that members,
even with their knowledge combined, know the region well enough ("We have been
operating in our own sphere of activities, so even though
I
have knowledge of
every district up there I've been looking at it from one point of view.
need to broaden our perspective").
We all
Furthermore their approach has more of a
marketing thrust rather than simply being visible (we need to "sell ourselves
to these people:
this is what we can bring you; tell us what your needs are and
we will design something to address them....").
Their view of internal
activities, team Interaction, people, and leadership seems to follow from the
basic goal of learning how to serve the region.
Both plan to take on more of
an external leadership role rather than solely an internal facilitator role.
From Conception to Reality: Is the Vision Realized?
Like the best-laid plans of mice and men, events do not always unfold as we
would like, and we have limited control over the behavior of others.
Nonetheless, we can try to determine how well the early behavior of the
regional teams conformed to the visions of the leaders.
Questionnaire data,
interview data, archival data, and observation notes were combined to follow
the development of the teams for the next five months.
Team Similarities
Questionnaire results obtained in February corroborated the leader's
initial Impressions that their teams had the appropriate skills and abilities
(see Table A, resources).
All team members rated themselves as having the
appropriate skills, abilities, and knowledge to do the tasks required.
The V
team had the lowest score and the X team had the highest, indicating some small
differences in that high range.
Team members also shared the perception that
18
they expected to be effective.
Scores followed a similar pattern with the V
team having the lowest score, and the X team having the highest, but all team
means above the midpoint of the scale.
Table four also reports on the structure of the teams.
With respect to the
structure of the task through the use of roles, goals, rules, and mechanisms
for coordination, all scores were low, scarcely getting above the middle of the
scale.
Respondents often left this part of the quesionnaire blank, leaving
notes that it was too early in the life of the team to evaluate the structure.
Clearly at this early point the teams are not highly structured, as most
leaders had planned.
However, teams and team leaders are meeting regularly and
the W, X and Y teams report having an easier time coordinating member effort
than the V and Z teams do.
External Interaction
One of the greatest differences between team leader projections about the
future
vras
the expected amount and type of interaction with the field.
had not planned much interaction early on.
the sake of visibility.
Victor
Walter and Xena planned a lot for
Regiional profiles for these three teams would come
from information that team members already had, or that could be obtained in
the Department.
Conversely, Yurgen and Zoro planned to revise their knowledge
of the region through interaction with the field.
They wanted to diagnose the
needs of the region and "sell" their services as a means to meet those needs.
In addition to relations with the regions,
all of the team leaders visualized
themselves to be the primary liaison to other team leaders and to the
Commissioner and Vice Commissioner.
Just how these external relationships
evolved is the subject of the next two sections.
19
Interaction With the Regions.
The quantatatlve data provide some
indication of the state of external relations.
The questionnaire data
collected in February Indicates team member responses to the question of how
hard it is to predict the needs of our regions, while the log data speaks to
the actual frequency of visits to the regions at a later point in time.
It
appears that the V team has a hard time early on figuring out the needs of its
region and is making fewer visits to the region than any other team.
this pattern but to a somewhat smaller extent.
W follows
The X,Y, and Z teams all show a
greater perceived ability to predict regional needs and more contact with the
regions, although the Y team is a little behind the others.
The qualatative
data provide more detail about attitudes and behaviors with the regions.
Interviews with members of Victor's team indicate that interaction with the
regions were a problem.
Several months into the new design a member reported
that there were few requests from the schools and so the team members had not
gone to visit schools.
Some members had gone to Superintendnt meetings, but
just to listen not to exchange ideas.
Echoeing the results from the
quantatatlve data the W team members also reported low levels of interaction.
In March members report interaction around finding out about Promising
Practices but little else.
already knew the department.
The rationale for this was that the superintendents
By May, however, there was some frustration
because "The field is waiting and we're waiting to be told what to do out
there."
In contrast to teams V and W, yet consistent with the quantatlve data, Xena
was actively involved going out in the districts.
Xena and various team
members met with Superintendnts and went to their meetings.
There was some
involvement with an elementary school project as early as February.
Here again
team members questioned the value of going to Superintendent meetings since
20
they addressed district agendas and therefore were not obviously helpful in
putting together
a
Nonetheless, this team was more active in
service plan.
going out into the field than the previous teams were, and Xena met her goal of
visibility.
The Y and Z teams showed the greatest amound of involvement with the
regions. At the April team leader meeting in which each team leader reported on
progress to date Yurgen reported great progress on Promising Practices and work
on a school evaluation project that could result in an intervention the whole
organization could participate in.
In addition team members reported that
throughout the first four months of the team's existence they were to Inform
Yurgen of troubling or interesting events in the district.
He was reported to
show inltiatiion vis-a-vis the region such as bringing the whole team to a
district to describe a program.
At the same "show and tell" session Zoro talked about superintendent
meetlngr, about events in the region and about activities that his members were
Involved with in the region.
communication network.
He was in the process of putting together a
By this time he was frequently on the telephone with
the "noisiest people in the district, so at least some of them think we're
marvelous" reported one of the team members in an interview.
Future plans
included having one member per district as an information node, a fulfillment
of his earlier vision.
These data indicate that the amount of interaction with the field closely
approximates team leader plans.
Furthermore, teams that indicated that they
understood the needs of the regions early on were also the ones who spent more
time in the field later.
The internal isolate team, V, shows the least amount
of interaction and understanding.
The external actives, Y and Z, appeared to
be the most active in actual projects and close to the pulse of current
21
problems and Issues in the field.
The external passives, W and X, appeared to
be split, with W more like an internal isolate and X
more like an external
active.
Interaction with the Commissioner's Office
The team leaders' decision to
act as liaisons to other teams and the Commissioner's office was decided at an
informal team leader meeting that Walter set up when the team leaders were
first chosen.
These meetings were forbidden when the Vice Commissioner (V.C.)
found out that such meetings were taking place without him.
This initial incident between the teams and top management foreshadowed
general conflict over who controls what the teams do, as well as a specific
theme of conflict and power plays between Walter and the V.C.
wanted the team leaders to act as
resented the intrusion from above.
a
Walter had
kind of support group to one another and he
Yurgen on the other hand was worried that
this conflict between Walter and the V.C. would Interfere with future team
leader meetings.
Thus, early on leaders were involved in liaison activities,
showing different approaches towards the Commissioner's office
There were signs of ambivalence on both the side of the Commissioner and
the side of the teams with respect to team autonomy.
Early on the Commissioner
was clear that he liked the new design and wanted It to work, he wanted the
teams to be independent and to serve the regions according to plans they
generated, or so he said.
things?
They want to meet alone, but are told they cannot do
They generate some ideas but are told that there should be
intervention.
is
What if they all do different
I'm not sure they know how to Interact.
So the teams begin.
so.
Still he was unsure.
So they go off by themselves to plan one.
a
unified
The Commissioner then
afraid they aren't doing anything so he designs organization-wide projects
such as Promising Practices designed to collect the best school practices in
22
each district and distribute them throughout the state.
Groups complain of
interference, yet some get used to direction and cease to act without word from
the
CO.
This back-and-forth between who's In charge, the team leaders or the
Vice Commissioner or the Commissioner Is never resolved.
The team's respond differently. Table A reports the mean scores from the
February survey for questions relating to the interaction between the teams and
the rest of the organization.
The V and X teams have the lowest scores.
Indicating they have a harder time determining management's expectations,
making team goals congruent with the organization's, and communicating ideas
and problems to other parts of the organization.
The W, Y and Z teams have
higher ratings on these dimensions, while the Y and
Z
teams also indicate a
higher degree of communication with the Commissioner's office.
The V team has a very negative view of the Commissioner and organizational
red tape.
As this team falls apart, members have the excuse that they could
not do anything anyway, the Commissioner would not allow it.
Victor tried to
support the Commissioner and his ideas, but was also heard complaining that
meetings with the V.C. were
a
waste of time.
negative response wasis not
a
deflection of anger from inside the team.
One has to wonder if this
At the
April "show and tell" meeting Victor told of his difficulty in getting group
commitment.
The Commissioner heard that Victor was having problems and asked
if he could help.
Victor may have been trying to deflect some of the
responsibility for failure onto someone else.
The W team, following Walter's lead, never gets over its anger at not
getting the power it is supposed to have.
Fighting for that power took up a
lot of time and energy and the frustration begins to gnaw at Halter.
Walter
chaired the first two team leader meetings (with the Vice Commissioner).
confronted the Vice Coiranissioner numerous times throughout these and other
He
23
meetings e.g. "How did this deadline get established when we weren't asked
about it?"
These questions were constant and stated in a loud voice. The
conflict between the V.C. and Walter over leadership in the team leader group
and over the relative power of team leaders in organizational decision making
persisted through May when observation ended.
Apparently Walter's statement,
"We're adults and want to solve our own problems..." is a theme that Walter
carried throughout his tenure as team leader.
Walter and his team also exhibit
some anger toward the Commissioner, they also do not like doing "mindless
tasks" that accomplish nothing.
Although Xena was more like an external active in terms of interaction with
the district, she played a very minor role in interactions Inside of the
organization.
She was quiet at team leader meetings and missed several of
them. Yet when we leave in May, Xena and her team are still waiting for
direction, she also is angry at the intrusion of the Commissioner in the teams
affairs., but wants to be told what to do.
Both Yurgen and Zoro took up active roles in communicating to, and shaping
the ideas of, the Commissioner and Vice Commissioner, and In presenting active
profiles of their teams.
When the Commissioner formulated the Promising
Practices idea, rather than complaining or resisting Yurgen reported the idea
to his team telling them that he will take their feedback directly to the
Commissioner.
leaders and the
Yurgen earned himself
a
good reputation with the other team
CO. through demonstrated competence.
Yurgen chaired the third
team leader meeting and the leaders were clear that this was their most
effective meeting.
Yurgen kept to the agenda while having people participate.
Zoro also took command.
When the Commissioner did not schedule an
organization-wide day for team meetings, Zoro pushed the team leaders to take
charge themselves, an idea he planned to discuss with the Commissioner.
At the
24
April "show and tell" both Yurgen and Zoro presented positive renditions of all
of their work in the field, thus presenting a positive image of success to the
CO.
other team leaders and to the
Internal Functioning
Table
4
reports the mean scores for questions relating to internal,
interpersonal relations.
Although patterns are hard to discern, it appears
that the V team is the most dissatisfied and the least cohesive, and that it
has not built up a set of norms of open communication among members, the key
goal of this team's leader.
to satisfaction,
cohesiveness
The X team, shows the highest ratings with respect
,
lack of strain, and meeting individual needs,
and relatively high scores with respect to creating an environment with open
communications among members.
The W, Y and Z teams generally fall between the
other two groups with moderate scores on open communications and member
outcomes.
The V team was perhaps the hardest to follow.
For the first several
meetings there was almost no advanced notice, no agendas, and no minutes.
The
one meeting in March that the researchers knew about was canceled due to poor
attendance, so only one meeting in May was observed.
Victor's major goal had been to create effective internal communications,
sharing experiences, collecting information and struggling with the nebulous
goals that had been handed down to the teams.
problems realizing these goals from the start.
Unfortunately, Victor had
The themes of poor
coordination, poorly run meetings, and low levels of satisfaction were reported
from early on in the team's development and continued through the four months
of data collection.
themselves.
This team actually resorted to writing memos among
One person wrote an angry memo that nothing gets done in meetings;
he got no response.
Victor sent a memo in April expressing complaint and
25
disgust about poor attendance at meetings.
He wanted members to notify him in
writing if they could not attend a meeting.
These internal difficulties were observed at the May meeting, at which
point members appeared ready to mutiny.
Victor asked about
a
project but no
one could respond because they hadn't read the report in the team folder.
Finally, a team member spoke up about the lack of communication in the team.
Many people started to complain.
getting an outside facilitator.
meetings.
The meeting ended with some discussion of
One member suggested rotating leadership at
Part of the difficulty with this group is that Victor acted as an
information giver, he seemed unable to elicit discussion about the information
or to involve people in task planning.
Both the W and X teams planned to be internal passives and placed team
building as
a
high priority.
The results indicate that these teams did become
well-structured, contented groups with facilitative leaders, whose only
complaint was that they were not doing enough in the field.
Both groups spent a fair amount of meeting time in information
dissemination from the team leader meetings, although members did not object to
this the way that Victor's members did.
Perhaps this was because both Walter
and Xena encouraged discussion of the information and joint decision making.
Meetings also included discussion of Promising Practices plans, and discussion
of district profiles where directions from Walter were, "come prepared to share
everything you know about the districts of the day."
exchanged information about functional unit activities.
Xena's team also
Both team leaders
allowed for discussion of team member concerns, and Walter even had
"The W Region: Where Do We Go Next?"
minutes that were distributed.
a
formal,
Both teams had agendas; and Xena's had
.
26
During team meetings observers noted that Walter was lively and
An interpretation by the observer was that "they work together
enthusiastic.
as a team,
they listen to one another but feel free to disagree...."
Although
both teams stressed open discussion and disagreement, observers also noted that
one or two members of each group appeared to dominate several meeting
discussions
Both teams were rated highly by members from early on.
The following
reaction is from an interviewee in Walter's group but is almost interchangeable
with many of the comments from Xena's team, "We're a good regional team.
We
have a good leader, we have good people, we do our homework, we have
information about our region.
..
.meetings are a strength, we're a cohesive team
and Walter is a very good leader.
He's democratic, tolerant of opposition,
brings us exactly what he gets and handles people well.
The Y and
Z
teams showed slightly different patterns.
Team meeting notes
indicate; that both teams spend the bulk of their time sharing information about
school districts, specifically what is currently going on in them, and
information about Promising Practices.
Both team leaders appear to be much
less consensus oriented than the other team leaders and more directive.
Early on in February several members noted that internal communications
were a problem in the Y team; members had been missing meetings and often did
not know what other members were doing.
Observation of a meeting late in
February appeared to show some improvement.
Yurgen asked for
what members sensed to be common needs in the region.
After
a
a
discussion of
lengthy
discussion with many people participating, one member expressed the feeling
that the kind of sharing in the meeting was valuable, especially hearing
everyone's perspective.
An issue early on was that Yurgen often communicated
one-on-one with team members between meetings rather than to everyone in the
27
Yurgen often would stop by between meetings and Inquire about what
meetings.
had been learned about the region, even if contact came through functional unit
contact.
One interviewee described Yurgen's style as a "chairman style" that
enables the team to take initiative.
"He gets requests from the field or
generates ideas and asks a particular individual to do
That gets people involved.
a
piece of the work.
Once he had the whole team go to a district to
explain a program-that was initiation on our part.
We're beginning to be more
like a team."
Zoro also was not a consensus leader, although Zoro told his team that
attendance at meetings was important and he expected them to be there.
Meetings appeared to be problem solving sessions; what aspects of the
organization are hampering our work and what can be done about it, how can we
help this district to deal with this problem?
Observations showed that Zoro
tended to control meetings by moving people from topic to topic and presenting
plans that had already been made.
the talking in team meetings.
He asked a lot of questions and did most of
Although he allowed members to vent anger at
organizational red tape, Zoro tried to control the mood of the group through
planning, activity, and praise of team achievements.
also was active.
Between meetings Zoro
One interviewee noted "he makes a determination of what is
needed and tries to get the right person to do it.
He's a strong leader who
knows the steps and therefore should be followed".
Outcomes
In February of 198A
ratings.
I
I
returned to the Department for some effectiveness
asked the Commissioner and the head of personnel to comment on how
well the teams were doing, and to rank order the teams based on their
performance.
No dimensions were specified for evaluation, the intent being to
determine the dimensions that these evaluators used in their organizational
28
roles.
At this time the Department was conducting Its own evaluation of the
new matrix and they had distributed questionnaires to randomly selected school
districts within each region.
The Commissioner told me that the team concept was finally taking hold,
although it had taken a long time.
Both the Commissioner and the personnel
manager gave me the same rank ordering of teams, in separate interviews, except
for the rating of the top two teams, which was reversed.
Neither respondent
thought that the intervals between teams were even.
Both rated the V team way below all the others.
as "the classic case of what not to do."
Its performance was seen
The V team was characterized as
reactive rather than proactive and as the only failing team.
next to the bottom.
It had
suffered high turnover.
The W team was
In addition,
the
Commissioner commented that the team had deferred to one of its members who had
strong field experience.
This turned out to be
a
mistake for the information
Walter apparently grew very
received this way was not always accurate.
frustrated with the limitations of his role, abdicated leadership, and
eventually resigned as leader.
The X team had the next highest rating.
Its
members were seen as happy and committed, and they satisfied many of the local
superintendents.
But the Commissioner reported that they had not done a damn
thing, they were just happy to be with each other.
The team met with
superintendents who didn't understand why they were meeting.
The two highest ranking teams were the Y and Z teams, both of which were
rated quite superior to the other teams.
The Commissioner rated Z the top,
while the head of personnel rated Y the top.
done a "super job."
their abilities.
The Y team was thought to have
Yurgen was good at "developing the team and he stretches
He has in-depth knowledge of the schools, and his school
evaluations were a prototype for the rest of the organization."
The Z team was
29
also seen as having done great work.
This team did some school evaluations
and "told the truth, which made some people angry.
The team also assigned people to districts, so there
with a good end result.
is one
But they did a thorough job
person to contact.
This has really made a difference."
These findings were not corroborated by the survey the Department gave to
the superintendents.
A reports
Although there are problems with the questionnaire, table
superintendent responses.
Results indicate that the superintendents
in the V region did not seem to be able to see improved service,
could not get their needs met.
In contrast,
they often
all the other teams were viewed as
continuing the same level of service as the year before, or more effective
service, with the Z region showing the most improvement.
The region served by
the X team indicated that it can always get the help it needs from the
department.
Clearly these "customers" may want something very different from what the
Commissioner wants the teams to give them, and from what the teams themselves
want to offer.
Nonetheless, these data were collected and fed into the
organization and hence are part of the story about the teams.
DISCUSSION
The five-team study offers an opportunity to reexamine our current models
of group development.
Several research questions were raised at the start of
this paper: How closely do groups develop following team leader schema?
boundary relations evolve In groups?
get handled over time in groups?
play in group development?
answering these questions.
How do
How do internal and external demands both
What role does the organizational context
The data allow me to make some attempts at
.
30
Early pattern setting
One of the more surprising findings in this
.
research was the speed at which patterns formed in groups and the large extent
to which group behavior followed leader plans.
Teams set up meeting patterns,
leadership styles, and ways of dealing with the external environment that,
after some small early adjustments, appeared to remain constant throughout the
early period.
Despite the similarities of task, organization, and time of
start-up, these early patterns varied depending on the leader's plans.
Teams
V,W, and X all placed a higher priority and spent more time on team building
activities.
W and X were more concensus oriented, and more participative than
teams Y and Z which adopted more chairman- like styles of leadership and more
directed team meetings. Team V, the Internal passive, had the least interaction
with, and understanding of
,
the organizational and external environment.
Team
W and X, the internal actives, modelled their regions placing a heavy emphasis
on prior team member knowledge.
V team,
Both teams were more active externally than the
although the W team focused that activity inside the organization and
the X team focused it outside in the regions.
The Y and Z teams, the external
actives, encouraged team members to seek new information from the field, not to
use only existing knowledge.
These teams did not simply observe regional
activities, they interacted more with the regions, tested out new ideas and
ways of serving the regions, and even did experimental interventions to see
what the reaction would be. These behaviors correspond closely to team leader
plans
Furthermore, these early patterns appeared to remain intact for some time.
Even in the face of negative feedback from the environment, as in the case of
Victor's problems, early patterns appeared difficult to change.
The log data
from September, and the performance evaluations In February of the following
year show evidence of inital patterns remaining.
31
In an era when the impact of leadership is being questioned, these data
show it to be an important link to process and performance.
of this are clear:
The implications
leader selection and/or training is critical in the design
of this kind of team.
Training
is
needed not just in skill building, but also
in bringing leader schema to the foreground and molding them to more clearly
reflect task demands.
If the team must interact with and serve external
constituencies, methods of how to model and meet the needs of the external
environment need to be learned.
Reaching ou t.
Clearly one set of decisions a team makes is the extent to
which it understands the world outside its borders and the way in which members
will improve that understanding.
These five teams either tried to buffer
themselves from the environment, to be visible in that environment, or to
actively seek to interact and revise their models of the environment. This
latter tendency epitomizes the epigram of one of Plaget's followers, "Penser,
c'est operer," or to think Is to operate (Hilgard & Bower, 1975).
Active
experimentation is thought to improve knowledge of means-ends relationships.
That is, if the team does this, what will the result be?
accommodate to the more extensive, changing world.
happens to be
a
The team can
If that external world
consumer of services, then use of the consumer in testing and
contributing to product or service development is well-known (see Von Hippie,
1982).
It appears dangerous
for groups to assume knowledge of the external task
environment and the demands of the task allocators.
This knowledge may well be
incorrect, yet if stated in a persuasive way with no external information to
refute it, it may well be adopted as the group model (as seen in groups W and
X)
.
The implication is that for teams that are dependent on external entities
for evaluation,
for providing input or accepting output,
there ought to be time
32
spent scanning the environment and testing out whether what the group thinks
the other party wants is indeed what it wants.
Perhaps the most revolutionary implication of this research is the notion
that traditional team building is not the way to best build a team that is
resource dependent on other parts of the organization.
In contrast to
traditional team building models this research suggests that experimentation
and mapping of the external environment ought to preceed priority setting, goal
definition, and even getting to know team members.
From this external
perspective early activities are aimed at answering the questions:
Who
provides input to the group, who "buys" the group output, who evaluates the
group, and what do these people want and expect from the group?
Then active
interaction and testing of action ideas with the environment follows to assure
accurate schema development.
Only then, or during this process are goals
articulated and team culture built.
Only then can roles be assigned based on
demonstrated competence at the task rather than claims of competency or verbal
acumen.
Hence the first roles to be filled In a group may be scout,
ambassador, and coordinator not meeting manager and facilitator (see Gladstein
& Cladwell,
1985).
The opening of the group's boundaries by sending people out to create an
accurate mapping of the environment appears to have some negative consequences.
It may take these groups
longer to form a cohesive team with effective
problem-solving capabilities.
On the other hand, these teams appear to come
together later, with cohesion based on affirmative Interaction with the
environment rather than an ability to get along and understand one another.
Clearly, some amount of cohesion and structure are necessary to enable a group
to interact with,
and test assumptions about, its environment.
The teams in
this study rely on active, "chairman" style leadership to accomplish this.
33
Thus,
if we were to go back and predict performance using traditional group
variables, it would seem clear that teams W and X, would be prime candidates.
From early on their leaders are participative and members are actively engaged
Members rate their satisfaction high early on
in debate and decision making.
and meetings are regular and well organized.
in teams Y and Z.
Instead, performance is highest
These teams have more directive leadership, their members
appear more satisfied with how they are going about doing their task, rather
than with one another.
The Y and Z teams are more proactive in seeking out the
needs of the region and selling their services.
They are not satisfied with
current schema that members have about the region, they go out and update those
schema through interaction with the environment.
These teams also have greater
communication with the Commissioner early on, project more of an image of work
in the region during team leader meetings,
and report an easier time
determining management's expectations.
Thi? link between, and timing of, internal and external activities is
intriguing.
Optimizing one may limit the other.
it appears more effective in the
In resource dependent groups
long run to optimize external activities
first, even is there is a short-term cost to internal cohesion.
Further
research is needed to test this proposition.
The Environment Responds
.
Thus far a team has been viewed as an entity
reflecting the vision of its leader and deciding how to engage the task
environment and task allocator.
However, the interaction is more complex.
The
environment reacts to the group and initiates action that the group must then
respond to.
differences.
Groups respond in an idiosyncratic fashion reflecting internal
The interaction between the group and its environment has
patterns similar to that between the members and the group Itself.
34
The themes of authority and intimacy appear to play an important role in
group-environment relations as well as individual-group relations.
Issues of
who's in charge here, how close do we become, and who's the favored one are
played out at yet another level of analysis.
Power struggles exist between
teams and task allocators, e.g. can we meet alone, and make our own decisions.
Temas form a link among themselves to become closer, but the V team becomes a
kind of scapegoat.
Thus, team member-group struggles occur at a level embedded
in group-organization struggles, that may still be embedded in a larger
struggle.
The external environment plays yet another role; that of echo chamber.
News of the teams, how well they're doing, what they're doing, etc. gets fed
into the rest of the organization and amplified.
When the V team's troubles
are told to the team leaders and the Vice Commissioner they are also being told
If they were in
to the Commissioner and other members of the functional units.
bad shape before they are surely in trouble now because they have trouble and a
reputation.
When the Y team's plan is used as a model for school evaluation,
and the Z team is congratulated on telling the truth to the superintendents
even if the news is not good, this is a signal that these teams are on the
right track.
The news itself reinforces this image making it easier for them
to continue on the right track.
Thus, the environment changes the whispers it
hears into roars, underlining the importance of profile management in teams.
Teams have to manage the information and images they send out because these are
the Images they will see reflected around them.
Although these teams are somewhat unique they do represent
a
form of
organizational group, with part-time members, external task allocators and
evaluators, and external demands that need to be addressed for high
performance.
This research suggests that to understand these kinds of teams
35
developmental research needs to go back to Parsons (1960) and monitor both
internal and external relations and how those two interact.
The research
suggests that teams that start off by actively modeling and testing ideas in
the external environment before internal team building may be higher performers
in the long run.
Furthermore, teams that monitor and manage their external
profiles face fewer pressures from the external organizational world that Is
mirroring back the image that the group presents to
have to test these propositions.
Future research will
it.
Our view of development clearly needs to
shift from an emphasis on individuals finding an identity and degree of power
in the group to one of groups finding an identity and degree of power in the
organizational and task environment.
The data used in this analysis suffer from low response rates, missing
data, and poorly worded questionnaires.
Nonetheless, the analysis demonstrates
the benefits of using both quantatative and qualatlve data, of monitoring both
within-group and external behaviors, and of both keeping track of group
meetings, and group member interactions between meetings.
In essence this research suggests that we have been studying group
development as if it were a play.
Group members are characters and we are
trying to model their relationships across three acts.
watching
is
really a play within a play within a play.
organization in a task environment.
turn, shaped by it.
But what we have been
The group is in an
Each level shapes the one below and is, in
As researchers we may learn more about the play if we get
the rest of the story.
Notes
Bion and the Tavistock School have not neglected external
1
Intergroup and community exercises are a major part of
activity.
Similarly Group Dynamics researchers have
Tavistock theory and training.
studied intergroup conflict and the impact of different reward structures
Nonetheless, these external behaviors
on group process and performance.
and influences have not been fed into developmental models and hence are
not addressed here.
Figure
1:
Framework of Group
Development
Member
Schema
Actions
How should
the group
behave
internally and
externally?
Feedback
Environment
U
c
o
*•»
CO
N
c
<
LU
X
z
o
>
CN
3
<
X
z
LU
o
>
<
X
z
LU
o
>
TABLE
1
SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTED
FOR EACH TEAM
TEAM
V
INITIAL INTERVIEW-
LEADER
W
X
Y
Z
11111
12 11
13
INTERVIEW-TEAM
2
MEMBERS
MEETING NOTES
3
2
3
(we took)
MEMOS (to team or CO)
AGENDAS
3
2
14
6
1
11111
LEADER NOTES
MINUTES
1
TELEPHONE
CONVERSATIONS
1
13
QUESTIONNAIRES
N =
10
2
1
7
3
3
I
i-H
O
^4
•H
OJ
CP
fO
a
E
t3
CD
Q
tn
rH
-P
4-J
i-H
^
d
tn
-H
u, x;
C
O
-H
-H
3
4-)
^
U5
(3
OJ
0)
S c
fO
4J
4-1
U2
4-1
H
(D
c-i
4-1
«
N
"'
1+4
4-'
4-)
(1,
1, s
0)
Cl
H
4-)
-H
(T3
0)
>i
(1)
y-i
0)
S-l
x;
4J
O
-H 'O 43
d
E
U
4J
-P
(0
'O
o
in
m
-rA
s:
tn
>ii4-i
C 3
^5
°
U-l
era
0)
o
•H ? O
Jq rH 4J
Q) n-(
4-)
fC
o
a,.-H
83
fa
g;
O
-U
§
4-1
3
u5
0)
u
m
d)
(d
cu
4J
•H
T)
TJ -H
c
4-)
^^
-P
o
U2
p
o
I
o
o
4->
Q)
0)
3
^ 33 4J
m u
Cn-rl
as
CO
1-1
CO
(D
3
0)
C
(1)
-H
rH
4->
•H
0)
<u
en
c
-^^
^s
iH
-H
0)
Oh
C
0)
S-l
^
U
I
&1
g
I
J4
4J
(1)
H iH iH
a
3 a
" -
&,
0)
^4
c m
E 0)
C U) Q
a.
o -d
E QJ
§ o 5 s
2 4-1 O C
ri
rS
>-i
s-l
s-4
>;
C
rH
&i
u
Q)
14-1
(D
^
.
CO
fC
TJ x: -n
<U
o
u
£
-P
X
X -H 3
^ 2 ^ B^ ^ -^ ^
E-H060CQJCri
DiocdMoec
S-iQOX^-hDG
W
5
a^ u 4J
-iJ
•
i-i
(0
QJ
q
C
3
a)
fO
0)
+J +J
o _
-
0)
3
i-l
r^
4-1
S
C
>,
CO
^
-P
5
0)
•-^
-H
0)
-u
:j
^
C O
3
-P
0)
-P
t3
43
:?
H
+j
a;
03
4-)
to
rH
fC
4->
0)
n
r-i
03
C
C C O O
0)
ra
-S
•'^
en
-
4J
M
E
^
<D
cu
-J
Vj
'^
"^
H
--I
iw
S-i
E
3 5
H
3
o 5
ftJ
-P
Sh
^S
-r-l
,
5
^&5^-^l
>-l
CO
ii
I
0)
'a x:
>
4-)
S-1
C en
o c
rg
0)
-P
tn
-
4J
s u
fO
U)
:5
i
C
QJ
4-)
(0
fO
^
S o
4J
(0
-P
U-l
en
m
'O
4J
•rH
U
to
[ii
O
4-1
X! X3
C O O
-H
r-i-r-'
Cn
f3
ii
I
^3
u
U)
•rH
fO
•H
0)
CO
•H
CO
>
M ^ Oa
R
u
3
(0
W
Qj
a
3
H
O
a
a o^
4->
_
^
3?
(U
-
T3
to
M-l
(P
!-i
-H
x; 4J
U-l
rH
0)
CD
^3
E
-'^
i-i
H
4J
O
ro
- 4J
a-H
D i-H
o -H
U
o en
.H -H >-l
u XI cr
w
E ^0)
- -H ^ £
(DmXJ-P-p
ro
3
q;
£
4J
H
a
fO
S-l
ro
(U
DO
Ul
M
4-) 4J
C
0)
w u „-H (D O P
>
D M > Cnia
4-)
w a, to
is m
U)
a, co' 4J ^ o
-p rg
>
CO S 3
c o
s M "D
O > S-3
e UJ 4-1 T) § w ^-S OJ <D
a-R
a (0 -p M 3
> vi
I
14-1
^
^
S-l
•
QJU-I4J rriXJ
ro
^S5
O
•
JD
I
•H
XI
-H
u-i
W ^
S
QJ
(3
R C
O
ry
gj w
e D c
m u
5^
^
4J
^5
d o
.8
en
Q)
o
0,4-)
(C
u
I
I
^^?
I
U5
GJ
O
U
n3
en
<u
TO
C
0)
rH
5
to
§
5
fC
(13
en
-W 4J
s
ra
3
O
u u
en
<D
0)
en
tn
0)
.3)
Q l^o
4-1
3 P
O
U
-p
as
^
+J
&5
o
^
-P
OJ
i3
(n
nj
^
4-1
•H
5%
(H
C
--H
•H
en
(U
>
5
en
CIJ
o
en
4-1
%
u
en
B
O
D
4-)
f3
C C
U-l
m
-p
-H t3
Ti
en
4J
a,
0)
oj
4J
Hc
4-J
en
•r-l
4-)
en
dJ
(U
>
TD
rH
•H
4-)
e 3
-H
H
m S D
S
4-'
tn
(U
C
^.&^
en
OJ
en
o
Ti
>
o
ii
^-^
tJ
ro
^•H
(D
en
u
QJ
y-i
-rH
g
.
ra
en
QJ
-H
C O
•H
M
s:
2"
QJ
i-l
en
4-1
-C
QJ
4-1
W
g
ro
55
>i
QJ
^-
Eh
H
_.
d
G
QJ
4J
O O_ O
g ^ 4-1
QJ P
C
_
4J -H
•
•
rH
=
en
03
QJ
QJ
Oi-r-i
H
O
5^
QJ
QJ
U
3
-U
-H
.
-Ti C
"2
in
-H
o
H
H
en
4J
-P
'
Q
CN
4-1
H
3
>
-P
'
&^
u
.
en
i3
3
o
i3 -3 -^
C QJ Tj
O q
QJ
q Q) q
cn u-i
QJ
o
•
g
C
o
ly
4-iq-rH£4J>-pm
U O 3
-H -H
D^l"'!
J-j
ro -r!
S5
§^l
H
Is
>H
Cn4J
Q 3
5 O
(13
-H
S
^ ^ Q
en
U
W'
5-1
I MH
-
QJ
aJCEQJentfloj
en
a-H
O 2
4-1
fO
a
cn-V4
I
_
cn
•
QJ
en
^5
en
en
QJ
en
03
q
en
QJ
QJ
4J
- n
.
en
HN
rH
'
^
O
gi
0)
QJ
(B
QJ
9i
£
+3
a
H
Cn
4-1
^
QJ U-l g
> O R
X ^Q4M-1o
-
13 -p
cn
4-)
3
o
nj
a
O rH
-H
en
" ^ o
en
Q)
C
O
QJ D -a u
^ g o
a-H
q g
-P
3 QJ 3 Q)
a
i!
QJ
Q)
3
3
Q
m5
(0
o
>i &,
0)
^ o
en
'S
QJ
"I
>
en
0)
Q
4^
s
5
q
-rl
^
QJ
QJ
rH
c q S S
^
o
OJ
^
C
% U
QJ 'ol
^
^
S
I
en
Ql
-^
o
03
1J14-I
o
QJ
Sh
5
-n
a;
cn
QJ
en
^ Q^-^
en 4-1
QJ
Q)
V)
QJ
i
0)
cii4J
QJ
03
3 jC
en >
aa O
o en 8 5'^
en
®
8
tjitp
4-1
en
Q)
04
en
C C
-U
U-l
(t!
•H -H
>
en
s
3
>
fO
QJ
53
en
c i 2
g P
o O £
en
u U
44
4-1
M
O
H
3
4J
Cn
0)
K
ji:
en
0)
O
fO
u
"fl
4-)
(0
en
en
QJ
fC
en
ft
4-)
en
en
2
^
-H
fO
r3
C
o
H
QJ
5^
(U
£
C O
IT14-)
C
QJ
en
3
S
4->
K- 0)
'
en
cu
-
>i
U
c
en
•H
O E
T3
QJ U-J
,
5
0)
>
(T3
P >
>,i5
QJ
J3 4J 4J
4-)
0)
u
5-^
5
-a T) -H
3
-p
4J
5
01
>
Q
£u
CJ
-^5
C C 0)
s
O O H
w tn x; E c
03
fg
u
en
o
c/)
(/)
; iH
:
'-I
4-)
-H
03
O u H I'm
g
0)
H
i-l
o
-p
c
•H
0)
3
^
c
o o
o
CO
U3
•J
U
TJ
•H
I
-P -P
1^
U3
Qj
3
c
0)
CO
\
(0
c
(U
H
(1)
Eh
o
H
<
u
w
a.
X
a
Q
fO
<C
Eh
CO
<
X
w
Q
<
W
>^
u
2
O
E
to
0)
Eh
-P
-P
to
o
-P
(0
(0
0)
0)
•H Ti
rH C
•H p
-p
+>
u o
C
Q)
U3
o
H
-p
O
-H
fO
[14
QJ
(1)
E
'U
C
C o
rc
u-i
CQ U}
H
a
c
(0
c
-H
>
o
e
4-1
en
0)
q;
J
TJ -P
-P
c
0)
to
c
E- Ch
o
(N
c
IH
E-
o
n
in
LI
o
o
"H
n
R
o
n
o
o
o
n
c
in
in
"3"
n
o
o
CI
o
o
c
5
05
M O
J-)
>
O
-I
m
.
3 5 o 5
o
o o
^
o
r--
c
o
o
in
CO
^.2
o
cr
H O
^^o
o
O
"^
O
^3
^5
—
c
o
o
rs
O
0)
^
> n
3
u -^
o >
•H
UJ -!
O
-a
c
R^
O
9
s
•
0)
s
APPENDIX
1
-
TEAM LEADER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Team Leader Interviews were held in early January.
asked were as follows:
The questions
How would you evaluate the new organization?
What are its major strengths?
Weaknesses?
What concerns do you have about the new
organization?
What do you think is the purpose of the
regional teams?
What goals, if any, does your team have?
Have you thought at all about how you will
achieve those goals?
Has the team considered any kind of structure
to organize activities?
How do you think your role as leader will differ
from the other members in the team?
ViJhat
do you think your style of leadership will be?
What activities, if any, do you plan for the team
in the first few weeks?
Although the team has just been formed, can you
give me some initial impressions of the members?
Do you plan to have any interactions with individuals
or groups outside your team, e.g., in other parts
of the organization or the region?
If so, what type?
^953 09
M^
Date ]]\ie^'^6
mm
MAY
;.tP
2 5 1992
%a
Lib-26-67
llllllllliiniilin
3
Toa
r
iliiuiil
DM 23D ES3